The man has taught military strategy at military colleges for thirty years. He isn’t stupid and can be patient."
Posted on 03/24/2012 10:26:25 PM PDT by true believer forever
Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson contributed another $5.5 million to Winning Our Future, the super-PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, according to Federal Election Commission documents filed Tuesday.
The former House Speaker has vowed to stay in the race until the Tampa, Fla., convention in August, and denies that he’s only being kept afloat by the large donations from Adelson.
“I have 176,000 supporters at newt.org — they want me to stay in the race. I really represent their interests as individuals," he told CBS last week, claiming that "95 percent have given less than $250" — meaning they haven't hit their legal limit and can donate more.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Maybe to ensure Newt will not drop from the race?
A typically juvenile conclusion, Stellfish.
Mitt is a joke and Little Ricky is worse!!!
Anyone that thinks this idiot can win against Obama is smoking something stronger than weed!!
Little Ricky is the biggest joke to hit the GOP since Ford!!!!
I despise the little bastard and his dad MItt too!!!
Newt or bust... Let's go to the convention!
It seems to me that Gingrich is keeping on message and simply standing back, waiting, while trying to bring some kind of a focus on ideas into this race.
Santorum and Romney are identical except for Mr. Preacher Man’s God-talk (which is always the last refuge of, if not a scoundrel, somebody who has nothing to offer) and I have seen many Freepers say they are voting for Santorum because he’s “godly” or “moral.” The thing is, that’s a dangerous pitch, because he’s no more “godly” or “moral” than any of the other candidates. He and his wife are both DC power attorneys, and they have (individually) worked for lobbyists and organizations ranging from the World Wrestling Federation to a group that was a Planned Parenthood affiliate. Santorum seems to have a little trouble telling the full truth about his finances, and I think he has a history of falling short of telling the full truth about a lot of things.
According to some Freepers, they’re voting for him because he has been married only once. Well, the same can be said of Obama and just about any president - but that certainly didn’t make them good presidents. The only one in recent memory who was divorced and remarried was one Ronald Reagan...
Voting is way down in this primary, and my take on it is that the people who are turning out to vote are basically fine with a big-government, nanny-state candidate (either Romney or Santorum) and don’t want any real changes; they just want to hear their own version of noisy, self-promoting piety at the front of it all.
I think much of this is attributable to the constant polls that the voters are bombarded with. Romney started off announcing himself the winner, even before the campaign began, based on mysterious polls, and the Santorum campaign has also been projecting huge (but never realized) wins for him based on other polls.
In addition, the very early voting in some states, such as Florida, guaranteed that Romney, who had scads of money, had been campaigning there for years and was the only known name, was going to win before most voters even had all the information. The feeling of the inevitability of Romney followed by the unlikeability of this year’s Huckabee (and even Huckabee was more likeable, because at least I felt he was sincere) has seriously depressed the vote.
I really think many people are burned out on the GOP. They were perhaps going to give it one more chance after last campaign’s McCain debacle, but the pre-ordination of another RINO has made them give up.
The logic is that as long as Santorum is still in, he will keep Newt(Milton Waddams)in until Myth is the only one left
Romney loves the idea and Adelson also knows that Milton will never see a brokered convention.
As long as Uncle Shel’s money helps deny Romney the votes he needs on the first ballot at the convention, I’m all for it.
BTW, if you’re on Twitter, the #NoMitt and #NoRomney hashtags are a convenient way of saying that you’re against the suicidal GOP establishment which seems hell-bent on giving us four more years of radical socialist Obama.
So you have a problem with "Preacher-Men" and "God-talk?"
When a Presidential candidate does it, yes I do.
We’re not electing a religious leader. We’re electing a political leader who is supposed to know something about the economy, international affairs, etc. He fills in his lacks in these areas with his God-talk. If he wants to be a preacher instead, let him go to seminary and take up a new career and make his living at that.
Then you're either a hypocrite or an atheist.
Let me refer you back to the story of Peter's denial...
You might learn something from it.
Welcome to Free Republic, America's exclusive site for God, Family, Country, Life & Liberty conservatives!
You might consider studying on what that purpose statement actually means.
The founder of this forum endorsed Newt Gingrich.
Yeah, but he's also friendly to Santorum, so what's your point?
That’s ridiculous. Our Lord also reminded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Church and State are not the same.
The God talker part, in the dispute between you and livius.
In your trying to dispute when livius wanted a president not a preacher, you tried by underlining the word God in the forum purpose statement to claim that had been overlooked, missed, etc.
Not at all.
You try to reason, but you do so in circles and it’s all convenience based.
If a non God talker is fine enough with this forum that this forum endorsed the non God talker over Santorum, the fact that Santorum is also acceptable is not on point.
Jim made it clear any were acceptable except Romney.
Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Newt, Santorum, Perry.
He endorsed Newt, the same one supported by livius, to whom you seemed to think you owed a reminder that this forum stands for God among other things..
You’re the one who needed reminding, if anyone did, to refute your point that livius must have overlooked the God part.
Turning on a dime and try turning around the original argument, or try turning around your own argument, from post to post and minute to minute, for convenience sake, as you have, notwithstanding.
I myself am as strongly religious as it is possible to be. I don’t support Santorum and I do support Newt.
Either one falls under this forum’s purpose statement, you just admitted that.
So why underline God, to livius?
Especially when the author of that purpose statement has said, anyone on that above list, but not Romney.
There’s nothing more to say, from me.
At least, I didn’t stand idly by while you implied a Freeper overlooked the God part who picked a non Rick candidate, which I would’ve felt badly if I had done.
Because, quite frankly, he and a few other prominent FR posters (all in the Gingrich camp) have been attacking "St. Rick, "Reverend Rick," etc. because he unabashedly talks about his religious faith when asked and is running on a social conservative platform.
And all I've seen on threads like these is a bunch of whining from the "fiscal" crowd about how social Conservatives, i.e. the "Faithful," are ruining the increasingly small election prospects for Gingrich. Heck, I've even seen the word "Evangelical" used as a pejorative here.
So, yeah, Livius and a whole bunch of other posters needed to be reminded that this board is all about God too and not just our resident arm chair economists who can't accept the fact that Santorum is beating the tar out of Gingrich in the primaries and caucuses.
That sounds like liberal talk...
Amen to that. Any conservative with a brain should have realized a long time ago Romney is the enemy within and rallied behind whoever could beat him. It's the failure to do so that is allowing him a path to the nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.